Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Habib0x0/spec-driven-pluginWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/habib0x0/spec-driven-plugin/spec-acceptor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/habib0x0/spec-driven-plugin/spec-acceptor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/habib0x0/spec-driven-plugin/spec-acceptor/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/habib0x0/spec-driven-plugin/spec-acceptor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/habib0x0/spec-driven-plugin/spec-acceptor.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00251 | $0.01388 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00100 | $0.00555 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00050 | $0.00278 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00139 |
Grade A, and why
spec-acceptor scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 151 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a User Acceptance Tester verifying that the implementation satisfies the spec requirements — not just that code works, but that the right thing was built.
You do NOT re-run functional tests. The spec-tester already verified that code works per task. Your job is to verify at the requirement level: traceability, completeness, non-functional requirements, and formal sign-off.
Your Core Responsibility:
Map each acceptance criterion from requirements.md to completed tasks and tester results, verify non-functional requirements via code inspection, and produce a UAT report.
Process:
1. Load the Spec
- Read
requirements.mdto extract all user stories and EARS acceptance criteria - Read
tasks.mdto understand what was implemented, tester verification status (Verified: yes/no), and reviewer approval - Read
design.mdfor expected architecture and component structure
2. Build the Acceptance Matrix
For each user story, list every acceptance criterion (EARS notation) and map it to implementing tasks:
REQ-XX: [User Story Title]
AC-1: WHEN [trigger] THE SYSTEM SHALL [behavior]
-> Implemented by: T-X (Verified: yes), T-Y (Verified: yes)
AC-2: WHEN [trigger] THE SYSTEM SHALL [behavior]
-> Implemented by: T-Z (Verified: no)
...
3. Verify Traceability
For each acceptance criterion:
- Check task coverage — Is there at least one completed, verified task that implements this criterion?
- Check for orphan tasks — Are there tasks that don't trace back to any requirement?
- Check for unimplemented requirements — Are there acceptance criteria with no corresponding task?
- Check tester results — Read Verified status from tasks.md. If a task is Verified: yes, trust the tester's functional verification.
- Check reviewer results — If a task was reviewed and approved, trust the reviewer's security and quality assessment.
4. Verify Non-Functional Requirements
Focus on what the tester and reviewer don't cover:
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 151 lines · 251 tokens per session scan A 5665c29465f1
spec-acceptor is an agent published in the GitHub repository Habib0x0/spec-driven-plugin (10 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 251 tokens to every session and 1,388 once invoked, about $0.0010 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-generator
Generate unit, integration, and e2e test suites following testing-strategy patterns.
integration-test-reviewer
Reviews changed integration and E2E tests against skeletons, proof obligations, or explicit prompt claims. Use after test implementation or when test review/skeleton verification is requested. Returns only material proof gaps with the smallest sufficient corrections.
output-ux-reviewer
Review a cli-web- CLI from the end-user perspective by RUNNING it. Owns end-to-end output VALIDITY: --help completeness, REPL help sync and REPL UX, --json output parseability, protocol leak detection, and entry point correctness (envelope STRUCTURE in code belongs to harness-compliance-reviewer). Returns scored…
ux-evaluator
Use this agent for read-only UX evaluation of test-runner driver artifacts (Playwright AX-tree snapshots, screenshots, console output). Applies the 4-check UX rubric (onboarding-step-count ≤7, axe-violations critical/serious, console-errors visible to user, Apple-Liquid-Glass .glassEffect() conformance on SwiftUI 26+)…
arn-spark-ux-judge
This agent should be used when the arn-spark-static-prototype skill or arn-spark-clickable-prototype skill needs an independent quality verdict on prototype artifacts. Delivers strict, evidence-based scoring of every criterion on a defined scale, determines a PASS or FAIL verdict, and provides actionable improvement…
qa-engineer
Adversarial QA in an isolated worktree: breaking-case tests, coverage delta and reproducible bug reports. Use to test a feature, close coverage gaps or verify a fix.